Friday, October 9, 2015

Indecision can at Times be the best Action

The title of Richard Clarke's article is: “In foreign policy, indecision is action” by which he means to say that to refrain from making a decision one way or the other on a given issue is an option that has an effect similar to that of making a decision. That's because indecision carries consequences just the same.

The article also has a subtitle that goes: “A painful lesson for President Obama in Syria.” It was published on October 8, 2015 in the New York Daily News. The aim of the writer is (a) to give an honest appraisal of how he sees President Obama has acted in the Syrian issue, (b) to discuss the reasons why he believes the President took the measures that he did, and (c) why the President refrained from taking other measures.

Clarke says that in the final analysis, President Obama decided on a course that was essentially inaction because he only supported the rebels who fought against ISIS and not those who fought against the Syrian government. He understands the President's decision, he says, given “the costs of the U.S. effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and even the smaller effort to topple Moammar Khadafy in Libya. Both dethronings had created catastrophes.” Nevertheless, he has reservations, he says.

He goes on to say that President Obama preferred to do nation building at home rather than fight wars abroad. In his view, this decision had nefarious consequences because: “the U.S. inaction temporarily created a vacuum, but as nature abhors a vacuum, so do nations and terrorist groups.” Thus, what Clarke is saying here is that it's better to send American troops abroad to fight in perpetual foreign wars, than to seek preventing catastrophes like Iraq and Libya by staying out of everyone else's business, and by doing nation building at home.

Missing in the Clarke presentation is the fact that ISIS and the other groups did not come into being because it saw a vacuum and decided to occupy it; they all came into being because they did not like the idea of foreign powers occupying their space. They fought to retake what's theirs, and when the Americans and their allies failed to show up in some of the places, the terrorists called on them to come and get them because they were full of fury and were spoiling for a fight. Thus, the theory of America creating a vacuum where it fails to poke its nose is a bogus claim endowed with a nose that's so elongated, it would scare even Pinocchio.

Sensing that his theory will not survive close scrutiny, Richard Clarke backpedals somewhat as can be seen in the following passage: “That is not to say that we should now rush into the Syria conflict to compete with Russia, Iran and half a dozen other nations who are now playing a role.” Neat, huh! It’s like riding a bicycle backward.

However, because he could not end his presentation at that point without doing two things: (1) fabricate an argument that would blame someone for some imaginary failure, and (2) pave the way for the dressing of a road-map showing the way forward -- the author has added the following: “The time when U.S. action could have been determinative passed more than two years ago.” That is, Clarke blames Obama for a failure that he prevented from happening, as if he had allowed the failure to happen. Go figure.

So now, the author is ready to draw a road-map for the way forward. He begins by telling what the moral of the story is. He says this: “as much as we might wish we were Norway or Singapore, we are not. We cannot pick and choose where to get involved.” Wow! Did you see that? He says America's decision is not America's to make. But whose is it to make? Nobody, he says. It is nobody's decision to make but … and there is a but … “we cannot put blinders on and just look at solving our internal problems,” he goes on to say. Pow!

Did you get the gist of that, my friend? Richard Clarke is saying that when local needs compete with external requests to get militarily involved abroad, America must not stop and think what to do. Oh yeah! Why is that? Good question. And here is the answer: “The U.S. and its Presidents are not free to ignore global instability. As bad as we make things, if we do nothing, they get bad enough that they affect our allies.”

Thus, he recommends that America thoughtlessly grab its war gear and fly to where a fictitious vacuum may be created, and fill that non-vacuum to protect America’s counterfeit “ally” they call Israel.

This being another Jewish scheme to mobilize America and put it in the service of Israel, it contains the obligatory reference to political blackmail: “We should keep that in mind when we look at presidential candidates.” Call it democracy if you wish; the reality is that it comes out the Jewish sewer.